Abstract
There is an urgent need to improve mental health outcomes among young people. One approach taken to address this problem has been the design and delivery of universal school-based prevention, based on therapeutic models such as CBT and mindfulness. Such interventions are delivered to groups of young people, irrespective of risk or need. However, in this commentary, we argue that the initial appeal of universal interventions has not been supported by the evidence: universal school-based prevention is less effective than targeted approaches, often leads to null or unsustained positive effects, has the potential to elicit negative effects and is not well liked by young people themselves. In addition, many young people in each classroom already meet the criteria for a mental disorder, meaning that prevention approaches may not be appropriate or effective for this group. In this commentary, we respond to Birrell et al.'s (2025) paper by arguing that the field should move away from universal prevention and instead invest our limited resources in the refinement and dissemination of interventions with a stronger evidence base, such as one-to-one, targeted and indirect approaches.